A dangerous path this...

I personally don't think the SW setting lends itself to moral ambiguity very well. Thats not to say it does not happen alot behind the scenes but extremely rarely are their obvious grey zones.

Narratively in SW there is Black and there is White and little to nothing in between. Nearly the entire point of the SW setting is summed up thus, and alot of the utter crap that so heavily populates SW is when people deviate from this precept. It's he simplicity of the setting that is its primary strength.

As amble evidence of point I offer up SWTOR.

If you play the republic storyline it quickly becomes painfully awful because Bioware tries to make the republic morally grey for some reason. (Perhaps to make playing Imperials more palatable) Regardless of the reason the entire "good guy side," arcs are fundamentally undermined and ultimately fail because of the moral ambiguity. A problem the Imperials never have because the Empire is evil, knows it's evil and acts... evil. This makes playing an Imperial much more fun because a) if your evil then everybody is on your page and you can all wallow in your crapulence together or b) if you want to turn good then being the lone light, the underdog fighting against the odds feels equally awesome. On the good guy side then your a) hero standing neck deep in poop and every action you take supports the poop and make more poop or b) a traitorous villain doing awful things to already awful people who were doing awful things to other people so... your pretty much more of the same.

So what I am trying to say is be very very careful how you use moral ambiguity because the setting does not handle it well and it can easily fundamentally undermine the characters and the Universe. Remember shooting Nazis is fun. Shooting at Nazis saving infants from a burning orphanage is not.

Level of inherent evil at all levels of the Sith Empire != level of inherent evil at all levels of the Galactic Empire.

Yawn, Godwin's Law.

Erik, is that you?

Erik, is that you?

No. I agree though.

Star Wars isn't the place for moral ambiguity. Star Wars is the place to tell people about brave knights and heroic courage.

So what I am trying to say is be very very careful how you use moral ambiguity because the setting does not handle it well and it can easily fundamentally undermine the characters and the Universe.

That's a very unflatteringly negative view of Star Wars you've got there, especially when you consider the OP's own premise:

Things like 'Mass Effect' inform the themes of my games as much as the original movies, because I like nuance and shades of grey. That said, I want the Alliance to retain its status as the 'good guys' as much as possible, and that they are actually trying to fight a 'just war' . Partly because High Command are mostly high-minded, honourable individuals, and partly because that stuff wins hearts & minds, something the Empire under the Tarkin Doctrine is remarkably poor at doing.

But still, sometimes bad stuff is going to happen. Even in conflicts like WW2, the Allies sometimes did bad things (there are plenty of films about this). Every war has its atrocities. The challenge for the Alliance (and my players ) is to win a guerrilla war against superior opposition without losing themselves in the process and becoming what they hate .

So with that in mind, what kind of situations could be used to enforce that? And the general Star Wars rule that the darker choices are 'easier and quicker' but eventually come back to bite you in the ass ?

Level of inherent evil at all levels of the Sith Empire != level of inherent evil at all levels of the Galactic Empire.

Yawn, Godwin's Law.

Erik, is that you?

It's a given that the evil the Sith Empire commits outweighs any sins committed by the Republic but choosing the lesser of two evils is NOT a theme of Star Wars. The fact that Bioware makes this EXACT mistake is a large part of the problem with the Republic storylines in SWTOR.

In large part this speaks to the immediacy of evil. It is one thing to be in orbit on the bridge of the Sith Flagship while the rest of the fleet orbitally bombards a planet and its entirely another to be running through a warzone and come across Republic soldiers place bets on a "game of run the minefield," with refugees desperate to earn their allotted food rations. The orbital bombardment is obviously an atrocity that vastly outweighs the petty evil of the republic soldiers, none the less the republic soldier have a far greater emotional impact than the planetary annihilation.

I do think you can do a moral ambiguous situation in Star Wars in well thought out and interesting manner, if your exceedingly careful about it. But you must have a full grasp what you're unleashing into your game and the inevitable moral statement you will be making.

This reminds me of all the GMs who think they are being so profound and deep by adding a room into an orc lair/dungeon full of orc females and children, then leaving the players to sort the situation out. That is a horrible tactic really the worst sort of GMing possible. It is vastly unfair to the players and could very easily cripple a game if the players don't use handwavium to sidestep the issue. Something small like this can ethically recast an entire setting in one fell swoop. The game goes from a fun romp playing adventures killing monsters and gaining treasure to having your character recast as sociopathic, possibly genocidal, butchers and brigands. How are the players suppose to respond to that? It's a tactic that fundamentally undermines good ROLEplaying.

Another problem this creates is the ethical problems associated with terrorism, insurgency and guerrilla efforts. Which is an ugly can of worms at the best of times and IMO you should have a solid grasp on the actual real life ethics involved before playing with this fire. If you introduce these elements into your game you will by default be making a statement about the ethics of these tactics. Thats fine if you know what you're doing but if you can't at least define the major differences between a terrorist, an insurgent, a guerilla and a freedom fighter then your starting in a bad place.

I also object to the use of Godwin's law. I mean I assume you are trying to dismiss my arguments by invoking a higher power. However I am not sure you understand the intent of the law. It's not suppose to be used just because someone uses the word Nazi online somewhere, something that one would think somewhat obvious. The Empire in Star Wars IS very much the Nazis dialed to 11, this is very obviously their purpose and the intent. To be even more clear I am not even truly referring to the National Socialist German Workers' Party but instead to cultural, virtually mythological, icon that is a Nazi today.

I do think you can do a moral ambiguous situation in Star Wars in well thought out and interesting manner, if your exceedingly careful about it. But you must have a full grasp what you're unleashing into your game and the inevitable moral statement you will be making.

So why does everything about both posts of yours signify that you have no confidence in the ideas-givers here (including the OP, a GM herself) to be "exceedingly careful" and "have a full grasp" of what they're doing and the inevitable moral statement behind doing so when sample scenarios are specifically what the OP soliciting ?

For that matter, have you seen the setting that the OP is running?

So why does everything about both posts of yours signify that you have no confidence in the ideas-givers here (including the OP, a GM herself) to be "exceedingly careful" and "have a full grasp" of what they're doing and the inevitable moral statement behind doing so when sample scenarios are specifically what the OP soliciting ?

For that matter, have you seen the setting that the OP is running?

I do think you can do a moral ambiguous situation in Star Wars in well thought out and interesting manner, if your exceedingly careful about it. But you must have a full grasp what you're unleashing into your game and the inevitable moral statement you will be making.

I think you're being hyper sensitive.

I never said that OP was incapable of running a morally ambiguous game, nor were any of responses aimed at the OP but more of a general statements responding to theme of this thread. As I said in my original post I am simply advising caution and the understanding that moral ambiguity is not an easily expressed theme in Star Wars. I think I have provided multiple examples where I have specifically seen them attempts at introducing moral ambiguity into Star wars (and other material) fail spectacularly.

I am hardly in a position to judge you or your games, and I find it somewhat disingenuous to imply that I am or even could, Furthermore even if I did play in your game and did judge it negatively that is a personal matter not one for public discourse.

Again with all that said, I will repeat that Star Wars does not lends itself well to moral ambiguity. It is simply not one of the themes of the setting and it in fact runs directly counter to core premise of the setting, which is the direct opposition of good verse evil. Good guys/bad guys... lightside/darkside... rebels/empire... republic/seperatist... freedom/tyranny and on and on.

Neither is this is an indictment of Star Wars in anyway not everything need moral greyness. In fact much of the greatest fantasy and Sci-Fi literature explicitly follows the EXACT same tropes. Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Lensman, Flash Gordon and again the list goes on and on.

As to the OP then. The very central theme of Mass Effect is the hard choice. The entire series is built around that premise, informed by that premise and serves that premise. Thus it is beyond simple in fact I would say virtually necessitated by the setting that all important scenes exist in a morally grey area. A straight black and white scenario plays against the setting, which again is not to say that it can not be done but that it is hard to do. So having said all that I think it is important to understand that carrying the ideaology of Mass Effect into Star Wars is tricky as the two are fundamentally at odds.

Edit: Also I had to quickly re-read this thread to sort out some personal confusion, because I am being accused of attacking the OP who's post I do in fact mostly agree with or at least much of what I take as the intent, so I was suddenly wondering if I was boxing shadows. However it's the many posts after the original and the general direction the thread was taking that I am speaking to. Which is the Rebellion as an overall gray organization, doing bad things for the right reasons.

Star Wars is the very close to ultimate example of the end do not and never will justify the means. It is most keenly represented by the very fundamental argument between the Sith and the Jedi, but it is a thread through the series as a whole.

Possibly how I would do ten different (seemingly) morally ambiguous scenarios. A key point here though is that while a lot of these situation may seem moral ambiguous they are really not, in most cases there is an actual “right answer.”

1. (Inspired by mass effect 2): The Empire has launched to strike missions against two separate targets the first is an important rebel military installation the second is civilian colony of rebellion sympathizers. The rebellion only has enough forces locally to protect one of the two locations. Which one do the PCs send the fleet to protect? (Theme: What are you fighting for?)

a. Extra credit the PCs save the colony which in the future bails them out or supplies something of great value.

b. Extra Extra credit the PCs send the rebel fleet to protect the colony then send themselves against the Imperial fleet attacking the republic military asset using daring-do to succeed.

2. The Hutt’s are having Imperial problems and are willing to provide the Republic with some much needed resources if they will do them a solid (such as use a fleet of their ships to transport something horrible ie. slaves, or dangerous spice.) Do the players back the plan? (Theme: crime is a cancer and ultimately undermines the social order your fighting for)

a. Extra credit: A fleet leader is willing to do it even if Mon Mothma won’t. Do the players support or undermine him?

b. Extra Extra credit: The players manage to out Hutt the Hutts by taking the mission then burning the shipment and fixing blame on the Black Sun starting an underworld war or at least making the Hutts more supportive of the Rebellion as the Empire backs the Black Sun.

3. Sent on an important mission the players secure an Imperial super weapon for the republic. Unfortunately as with most imperial weapons the effects are horrific, but manageable (something like the defoliator from clone wars or the electromagnetic torpedo from the EU). Mon Mothma is opposed to its use but Garm Bel Iblis(or if he is gone then some other Alliance Hawk) supports it. The rebellion needs the opinion of the PCs because they are the only one to have seen the weapon in use. (Theme: ends do not justify the means)

a. Extra Credit: Garm is going to use it come hell or high water. Through daring and desperate antic the PCs mitigate the horrible effects of the weapon and hold up this weapon test as an example to Garm and the Rebellion that weapons of this kinda should never be used.

4. The Rebellion has an opportunity to use fear as a weapon to undermine the Empire. Perhaps using terrorist attacks on population centers to force a key planet to stall vital shipments or equipment to the empire. (Theme: Fear is a tools of the sith, and is ultimately toxic)

a. Extra Credit: The players choose to support this strategy and then it backfire spectacularly. It galvanizes the population into a ferocious support of Imperial Forces that won’t change for the next 40 years or so.

5. A faction in the rebellion plan to assassinate key civilian leaders to destabilize sector support for the Empire. The leaders may or may not be corrupt but all are the legitimate rulers of their respective worlds. The players can choose to back or undermine the plan. (theme: The rules of war)

a. Extra Credit: The players oppose the plan but the rebel cell is going to do it anyway. The players report the danger to the rulers who are able to stop the plot, in doing so gaining their lukewarm support for the rebellion.

b. Extra Credit: The players support the attack which are successful however the loss of civilian leadership throws the planets into chaos. In some cases power crime cartels move in others the Empire sets up puppets and in worst cases warlords take over and being oppressing their people.

6. While running a mission on a planet the players run into a group of Dark Jedi (possibly inquisitorious) and mange overpower the weakest most broken one. They can try to redeem the Jedi or kill this threat. (theme: redemption or light over coming darkness is fundamental to SW)

a. Extra credit: They attempt to redeem the Jedi who goes down like a champ squaring off against the other Dark Jedi allowing the players to accomplish their goals.

b. Extra Extra Credit: Even through the attempt initially fails they keep trying and in the end the Jedi dies but is redeemed becoming a power force ghost that can guide the players in the future.

7. The players (possibly as ambassadors) encounter the Ssi-ruuk on a mission into the unknown regions. During the encounter the Ssi-ruuk prove themselves to be evil, possibly demonstrating the entrenchement technology to their new good rebellion friends they do however have weapons and ships the rebellion desperately needs. Do the player support the alliance or refuse it. (Theme: Don't make deals with the Devil)

a. Extra credit: The players support the deal, but oh wait the Ssi-ruuk made a deal with Emperor years ago and sell out the rebels.

b. Extra Extra credit: The ssi-ruuk sell out both the rebels and the imperials capture all the survivors and cart them off to be entrenched forcing the players to ally with Imperial to get themselves out the colossal screw job they dug for themselves. Of course the Imperials betray the Rebels first chance they get making everything so much worse.

8. The players or another group get their hands on the Blackwing bioweapon. They don’t know what it does (or maybe they do) but they do have the chance to unleash at the Kuat shipyards to what will no doubt be utterly catastrophic effect. If projection are run the loss to the imperials is shown to be something utterly crippling. Either way Mon Mothma and Alliance high command utterly forbid its use. However a quasi-rogue rebel commander with a serious ax to grind sets the plan in motion. Do the players support or prevent the plague. (Theme: Bio weapon are bad, extremes in warfare are bad)

a. Extra Credit: If the players support the deployment of the Blackwing give them EVERYTHING that such as act of colossal stupidity deserves. Pull no punches give no ground.

9. The players uncover a cabal in the rebel alliance that think Mon Mothma is too weak to lead the rebellion. This cadre advocates the use of extreme and indiscriminate tactics as much as they can get away with. The movement grows within the Alliance and the players are forced to choose sides the divide goes right into the high command. This is more of a matter of when and to what degree the players choose rather than the choice they make as obviously Mon Mothma’s faction wins. (Theme: Extremists disenfranchise those they purport to speak for)

a. Extra credit: If the players choose to go hardcore and support Mon Mothma right out of the gate then this turns into a small extremist group that the players are tasked to deal with. The group quickly goes waaay to far and is dominated by their hate and quickly become as bad as the Imperials if not worse in someways.

b. Extra Extra credit: If the player wait a long time to decide or are wishy washy in their choice then the extremist faction grows and causes a serious divide in the Rebellion eventually resulting a serious split and short but brutal internal power struggle. This weakens rebellion and several important militant leaders (garm if he is still around for example) split away from the main rebellion and become separate groups waging private wars.

10. The player are tasked with chasing a shadow assassin that is taking out Imperial targets right and left jack the ripper style. The assassin is killing both military targets (valid) and civilian targets (not valid) also they are taking out relations of the Imperials, perhaps even using them to lure Imperial officers into a trap then killing them both. The assassin is however proving to be highly skilled and extremely effective and disrupting Imperial action in the nearby sectors. The local imperials are outright terrified of the shadow killer. When the players final catch up with the assassin what do they do? (Theme: hate consumes and leads to a bad end)

a. Extra credit: The assassin is a female friend (perhaps love interest) of one of the players or perhaps she is the daughter of an important and pacifistic member of Alliance.

b. Extra Extra credit: The ISB is hot on her heels and has half the info the players need or half the resources, do the players team up with their imperial counter parts?

I also object to the use of Godwin's law. I mean I assume you are trying to dismiss my arguments by invoking a higher power. However I am not sure you understand the intent of the law. It's not suppose to be used just because someone uses the word Nazi online somewhere, something that one would think somewhat obvious. The Empire in Star Wars IS very much the Nazis dialed to 11, this is very obviously their purpose and the intent. To be even more clear I am not even truly referring to the National Socialist German Workers' Party but instead to cultural, virtually mythological, icon that is a Nazi today.

Godwins' laws is that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." Has nothing to do with higher powers. Really helps to look things up if you aren't certain what they mean. Keeps you from saying stupid things in ignorance.

And there's the Usenet corollary to Godwins' law: First to invoke the Nazis as an analogy loses. So I guess George Lucas loses; he's the first person to ever draw a public comparison of the Nazis to the Empire.

Unless, of course, you're asserting Michael Godwin is a higher power; something to which he's likely to not favor.

Saying that Star Wars doesn't work well with moral ambiguity just makes Star Wars sound incredibly shallow, when moral ambiguity was a pretty important part of why Return of the Jedi nailed "it" for me... for Luke nailing "the right choice" in spite of moral ambiguity.

In fact much of the greatest fantasy and Sci-Fi literature explicitly follows the EXACT same tropes. Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Lensman, Flash Gordon and again the list goes on and on.

... that speaks well of none of them, and any of the above that I receive in print form is destined for my wastebasket. Hell, I've never even heard of Lensman other than in the context of the Lensman Arms Race trope.

Ironically, there's only two works of media that can do "good vs. evil played unironically" in my eyes without coming off like horrible propaganda... pro wrestling, and the Star Wars original trilogy. Whereas the fault of the prequel trilogy in my eyes is that my reaction to them was " yeah, I can see the roots of how the Jedi fell, possibly more than George Lucas intended ..." which makes it all the better for me that Obi-Wan blessed 'the succession' (of the Jedi) to Luke by declaring him " Not the last of the old, Luke... the first of the new ." Then again, I thought that the prequel trilogy was incredibly shallow compared to the original trilogy...

Hell, my major problem in turn with Star Wars: The Force Unleashed ... " This is what the original trilogy could have been like had George Lucas tried making it in the '90s, which is absolutely horrific to imagine ."

P.S. KingBanjo, I've got ErikB on ignore, so I have no idea what he says.

Again with all that said, I will repeat that Star Wars does not lends itself well to moral ambiguity. It is simply not one of the themes of the setting and it in fact runs directly counter to core premise of the setting, which is the direct opposition of good verse evil. Good guys/bad guys... lightside/darkside... rebels/empire... republic/seperatist... freedom/tyranny and on and on.

I would have to disagree, but then that's my prerogative. I mean, Boba Fett was viewed as a bad guy, and yet in the EU he later helps Jaina Solo and is in love with a woman - even has a child with her; not all of the Separatists who broke away from the Republic were evil - the Clone Wars animated series even shows some people doing so because they don't agree with how the Republic prioritises and functions (if I recall correctly), not because they want to be 'evil'; the Naboo and the Gungans were at war with one another in previous times, though both are considered 'good guys' in the films.

I think that Star Wars has evolved with its various materials to become something more alive - it can very, very easily be played as a black/white, good/evil game and be amazing, believable, and epic; but by the same token, you can add morally grey and questionable actions and still have it be incredible to explore.

Also, I believe that FFG stated that EOTE's focus is on the morally grey areas of the setting; the fact that it's sold so well, with people so keenly trying to explore these darker elements, gives tribute to how popular an idea it is that Star Wars CAN be as morally grey as you wish, and NOT be wrong by doing so.

I think you can safely assume that anything that looks like a moral ambiguity in Star Wars is actually an unintended storytelling failure which will be fixed by Lucasdisney as soon as they notice it. People who forget that and try to insist on reading stuff in to the material that isn't supposed to be there (like Karen Travis and the Ewok Holocaust guy) quickly find themselves... not invited back to produce more Star Wars, and anything they did slip in is disavowed.

Does anyone else smell socks?

I think you can safely assume that anything that looks like a moral ambiguity in Star Wars is actually an unintended storytelling failure which will be fixed by Lucasdisney as soon as they notice it. People who forget that and try to insist on reading stuff in to the material that isn't supposed to be there (like Karen Travis and the Ewok Holocaust guy) quickly find themselves... not invited back to produce more Star Wars, and anything they did slip in is disavowed.

Speaking with authority then, are you? Can I ask the name of your inside source with Disney?

... which means that Lucas would be signing off on tossing the entire prequel trilogy.

Speaking of Traviss, the funny thing about what I have as a problem with her work was she simply inverted the Jedi and Mandalorians in still-binary morality when the latter were even worse ... which, considering the prequel incarnation of the Jedi, is really quite saying something!

Thank gosh for Obi-Wan yielding the Jedi legacy to Luke...

P.S. READ RAZOR'S EDGE ALREADY.

@ KingBanjo, I will say that your offered plot hooks are actually more along the lines of what I myself was looking for -- binary morality is not necessarily tied to political faction, and if anything it's only moral if it's independent of political faction , so I'm very pleased to see that some of your plot hooks are specifically "do the right thing in spite of the Alliance " -- and I accept them as being good-faith-intended answers to the OP.

P.S. Please don't mind the comparison with ErikB, he's simply acting in bad faith unlike yourself.
P.P.S. Heya Maelora, glad to see you back and kickin'!

"Good guys/bad guys... lightside/darkside... rebels/empire... republic/seperatist... freedom/tyranny and on and on."

There are a number of examples in G-canon and T-canon of evil/tyrannical acts intentionally committed by the "good guys." Like, full-on 'light side' good guys. I think this plays against your argument.

Frankly the separatist secession probably should have been legal, where it got twisted was trying to execute a senator and two Jedi, and certainly because the Sith were behind both sides of the war, egging it on when it might have otherwise been stopped. But I found the war premise shoddy aside from that. Obvious parallels to the American Civil War, sure, but we don't have the Republic's founding documents to look at with regard to the legality of secession from the Republic.

"Again with all that said, I will repeat that Star Wars does not lends itself well to moral ambiguity."

I haven't seen evidence. Ambiguity is also present in G-canon (the best example being the simple creation of the GAR), so.

The Sith turning out to be behind both sides of the war pretty much precludes "republic/separatist" and "freedom/tyranny" as moral dichotomies, thanks to Episode III revealing them to be just strings pulled by a Sith to get himself the galactic throne and the Jedi wiped out, whereas light side vs. dark side is way closer to " playing it straight ".

That difference from the more fundamental moralities -- like " lightside / darkside ", which is KingBanjo's proposed plot hooks get to the heart of! -- is one of the perils of making real-world politico-moralistic parallels...

P.S. READ RAZOR'S EDGE ALREADY.

I'm listening to it as an audio book and I've got about two hours left so I guess there could be a big reveal, but so far (spoilers) Leia is righteously indignant that an Alderanian would consider turning to piracy, the book spends a lot of time reinforcing that said piracy is an error of judgement on the part of the pirate captain (who is clearly out of her depth with the people she has gotten her crew involved with) and said captain ends up dead, saving Leia and with her last words showing that all she wanted to do was help her crew and she was sorry about the whole piracy thing. The bad guy woman makes people play twisted games for her amusement and casually kicks dogs/executes random extras so we don't feel bad when she gets offed.

Its got Imperials worrying that they will face summary execution if they report failure, Leia reflecting that a slaver she has just run over with a drilling machine probably deserved worse and absolutely no hint of attraction between Luke and Leia.

This is indeed a Star Wars book.

For that matter the Imps have a business relationship with the evil pirate woman, whereby they turn a blind eye to her activity in return for some kind of kickback.

P.P.S. Heya Maelora, glad to see you back and kickin'!

Thank you! Just got back from a four-day EoE/AoR binge, where I GMed four sessions per day, over four days... It was amazing and poignant (two characters unexpectedly sacrificed themselves) and now I just need to curl up in a corner and sleep...!

I think you can safely assume that anything that looks like a moral ambiguity in Star Wars is actually an unintended storytelling failure which will be fixed by Lucasdisney as soon as they notice it. People who forget that and try to insist on reading stuff in to the material that isn't supposed to be there (like Karen Travis and the Ewok Holocaust guy) quickly find themselves... not invited back to produce more Star Wars, and anything they did slip in is disavowed.

I've said this before but... this is a game thread.

Not a movie thread.

I don't see how on earth what Disney does or doesn't do at this point affects the games we choose to play.

'Star Wars' is now a different animal than it was in, say, 1983. The version we play is as much informed by 'Firefly' as the original movies. I wanted a radical alternative take on existing lore. The players wanted gritty action and cool Force effects a la 'Mass Effect'.

We can all play the games we want, and I started this thread to get ideas from my fellow players and GMs about how they would handle the complex moral ambiguity we usually see in war.

Erik, do you actually play EoE or AoR?

A dangerous path this...

I personally don't think the SW setting lends itself to moral ambiguity very well. Thats not to say it does not happen alot behind the scenes but extremely rarely are their obvious grey zones.

So what I am trying to say is be very very careful how you use moral ambiguity because the setting does not handle it well and it can easily fundamentally undermine the characters and the Universe.

Oh, I think I did a pretty good job of 'undermining the universe' when I killed off Palpatine, Anakin, etc

And while I see your point, I'll respectfully disagree... EoE in particular seems all about the moral ambiguity.

Thank you to everyone who contributed constructively on this thread. This is exactly why we come to message boards, to brainstorm and toss around ideas.

Special thanks to Chortles (I can actually feel my IQ rising when I read his posts!) and to KingBanjo for his exhaustive list of possible scenarios that will keep me in plots for months!

Personally I agree with the 'karmic' approach, that ruthless choices might seem sensible in the short term but will eventually come around to bite you on the behind. That seems in keeping with the 'dark side is not more powerful, but quicker, easier' approach that seems very Star Wars.

That said, I do like shades of grey, and taking the moral high ground shouldn't be easy. I believe that the Alliance really IS trying to fight a high-minded, 'just war', but that in itself presents challenges.

Anyway, thanks for everyone who offered me something, there's plenty here to keep my febrile mind ticking for ages...

There's also a bit in the section of EOTE that introduces the Alliance (GM section?) in which it details Mon Mothma being someone willing to make hard and questionable decisions, though she's far less ruthless than Palpatine. I cannot post the exact wording at the moment, as my book's back at home.

If the good guys never have to make hard moral decisions, the story is a lot less compelling. That doesn't mean they should be forced to do the less-savory option, but that it should appear easier/quicker to do so, and they need to stand on their principles and take the high road if they want to stay white and clean. Quick And Easy Power At the Cost of Your Soul is a big theme of the setting after all.